Route-level techno-economic assessment of alternative fuels for short-sea shipping under EU emissions trading system
EU排出権取引制度下での短距離海運向け代替燃料の航路別技術経済評価 (AI 翻訳)
Georgi Hrenov, Merle Kuttim, Helery Tasane, Wolfgang D. Gerstlberger
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、EU排出権取引制度（EU ETS）が短距離海運の燃料選択に与える影響を航路別に評価。Tank-to-Wake排出量に基づき、従来燃料と代替燃料の総保有コストを比較し、炭素価格感応度を分析。現在の炭素価格（≤100 EUR/tCO2-eq）では化石燃料が最安だが、価格上昇に伴いBioLNGが150EUR/tCO2-eq、バイオ燃料が200-250EUR/tCO2-eqで競争力を増す。水素・アンモニアは経済的に不利で、普及にはコスト削減が必要。
English
This study assesses route-level fuel competitiveness under EU ETS using Tank-to-Wake emissions and total cost of ownership. Fossil fuel is cheapest at current carbon prices (≤100 EUR/tCO2-eq), but BioLNG reaches cost parity with MGO at ~150 EUR/tCO2-eq, and biodiesel/HVO at 200-250 EUR/tCO2-eq. Green hydrogen and ammonia remain uncompetitive due to high production and retrofit costs, indicating near-term reliance on bio-based and LNG-derived fuels.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本は海運大国であり、EU ETSの影響が日本船社にも及ぶ。2024年からEU域内航路にETSが適用され、日本企業の対応が急務。本論文は、代替燃料導入コストの見通しや政策検討に示唆を与え、日本の海運GX戦略立案に有用。
In the global GX context
This paper provides empirical cost parity thresholds for alternative marine fuels under EU ETS, informing global shipping's decarbonization strategy. The results are relevant for transition finance frameworks and scenario analyses required by ISSB and other disclosure standards.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides route-level cost parity benchmarks for alternative fuels under carbon pricing, useful for modeling shipping decarbonization trajectories.
🏢実務担当者:Shipping operators can use these cost curves to assess fuel transition investments and plan for EU ETS compliance costs.
🏛政策担当者:Indicates that near-term policy support for bio-LNG and biofuels is critical, while hydrogen and ammonia require further cost reduction and infrastructure investment.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The inclusion of maritime transport in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) has introduced carbon pricing as a direct cost factor for short-sea shipping operations. This development alters fuel competitiveness and investment incentives, particularly on regional shipping routes serving peripheral ports. This study presents a route-level techno-economic assessment comparing conventional fossil fuel with different alternative marine fuels. The analysis integrates Tank-to-Wake emissions accounting for fuel expenditure modelling, capital requirements, total cost of ownership, and carbon price sensitivity, as the EU ETS applies carbon pricing to direct onboard emissions, ensuring consistency between the emissions boundary and the regulatory cost exposure of ship operators. Results indicate that fossil fuel remains the least-cost option under current carbon prices (≤100 EUR per tCO2-eq), although its cost advantage declines rapidly as allowance prices increase. BioLNG approaches cost parity with Marine Gas Oil (MGO) at approximately 150EUR per tCO2-eq, while biodiesel and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) become competitive above 200-250EUR per tCO2-eq. Green hydrogen and ammonia eliminate operational emissions but remain economically uncompetitive due to high production and retrofit costs. The findings demonstrate that near-term decarbonisation of short-sea operations is most likely to rely on bio-based and LNG-derived fuels, whereas large-scale adoption of hydrogen and ammonia requires substantial cost reductions and infrastructure expansion.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.22616/erdev.2026.25.tf130first seen 2026-06-26 05:30:27
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。